“When threatened, the female of the species is the most dangerous, for she will fight to the death to protect her young.”
And a man won’t? Kind of “sexist,” isn’t it? Just like saying a man wouldn’t have children because he can’t stand the pain . . . Can’t imagine what kind of a man (or woman) would not fight to the death to protect his young.
Unless there are no men to put into harm’s way, women should never be put there . . . never . . . I have too much respect for women to want them to be fodder for an enemy . . . remember what happened to Jessica Lynch . . . once the feminists found out what the savages did to her in captivity, they dropped her like a hot potato.
I’m from the old school . . . women are very special . . . no need to have them in combat at all or any where near combat . . . I feel so sorry for her . . . she’s a heroine . . . but the military thinking that put her into a demolition disarmament unit should rethink their thinking.
You and I are not actually disagreeing. I would much prefer my man to protect me from danger, and I am sure he would, as many men have done for their wives and children in all the eons past.
But, when all else is lost, do not underestimate the female of the species to fight to her death to protect her young.
Your point, that she shouldn’t have to, is what has enabled women and children to survive this far.
But, we are living in a falling empire. Unfortunately for my grandchildren.